RicoS321

To understand the change to this format, you have to understand what they're trying to get to. The final goal is a European league(s). This gets everyone used to the idea by creating the format first, and then slowly increasing the number of games you play within the format. It doesn't make sense now, but in a couple of years, you'll maybe have 8 games in Europe rather than 6. Then 10. The closer you get to the final format, the less pronounced are the differences in fixtures but, paradoxically, the effects become more visible (team X played exactly the same fixtures as team Y, bar one fixture which they lost and finished three points behind them, missing "promotion"). At that point, the calls are then switched to shouting for a full round of fixtures for everyone rather than questioning the tournament itself. It's basically using the sunk cost fallacy to get what you want. Governments, businesses and football cunts do it all the time. The most obvious example is VAR. Your goal is to remove all refereeing errors from football, so you introduce a shite system. You then slowly chip away at each type of decision until you get what you want. At a certain point, people stop questioning the existence of the system itself and they are the ones saying "well we've got this system, why aren't we using it for throw-ins?". Aided and abetted by morons in the media who have discussions about "how we can make VAR better", rather than "how can we organise to get rid of VAR", not realising that the former discussion doesn't mean impartiality, you've already agreed with Thatcher's TINA (there is no alternative). It's not just football. Every single town and city on the planet is setup in the most ridiculous fashion to accommodate car travel, for example. We must bail out banks, and so on. We don't have a say. We all know that the correct answer is to rip it up and go back to knockout tournaments, unseeded. We all know that what makes European football magical is its scarcity.

I didn't think he was great, but the role plays to none of his strengths, and all of his weaknesses. Yet, when you compare to Karlsson on the opposite side, there wasn't a significant difference between the two performances.

It's not a league though, is it. It's a contrived bollocks set of games where different teams play others at random. It's tragic as fuck that people actually came up with it in the first place. You can't even properly slag us off for finishing bottom because we played different teams than others around us. I'm fucking glad we're avoiding this format for imbeciles next season (unless we win the league).

Shame. I think we were really starting to come onto a game in those last fifteen seconds.

Bilalovic would scored three by now, but we're saving him for the league.

Reckon Clarkson will be off soon. Zero point in playing him in that position.

Shite goal to lose. Poor from Mitov, but I think Knoester needs to read that better when Shinnie sends the player inside.

Maybe somebody got their names mixed up

Arguably the worst of the three. In fact, not even arguable. Not remotely controversial. If I won the cup with the Dons, I'd try and reproduce with myself.

The Tims aren't very good

The pitch? Bloody yanks.

It's a growth-based, competitive system. To rip up a growth based, competitive system and replace it with another would be the stupidest thing we could do. It takes a real denialist mindset to suggest otherwise. You correctly derided those who deny climate change, but I'm not sure that moving the denial barrier to "nicer" perpetual economic growth is any less derisory.

Should have got that seen to.

Socialism is a growth based, competitive, system. Both capitalism and socialism can solve the climate issue, just not in a way that would solve any of the other issues in our current metacrisis. That's why climate becomes a single ticket issue, when it very clearly isn't. Neither system works, they're basically the Huns and Tims of economic systems.

Nobody replaces one system with another, they simply occur from the ashes. You don't get to pick and choose. Certainly, we don't. The most important point, though, is that capitalism can only fail. It's ecologically, materially and energy illiterate - it makes no sense. It's simply a question of when. It's a parasitic system* which, once it kills its host, will die. Therefore, the question of what replaces capitalism is open to everyone, including those who deny that it's a parasitic system, against all evidence. What would you replace capitalism with? Or, if you prefer, how do you think capitalism evolves in a world with a dwindling resource base and limits to growth? Or, probably a better question (for all), is what do you see coming after capitalism whether we like it or not? *As is socialism, and all forms of communism that have existed alongside other systems.

I was taking the piss out of @Mason89's assertion that everything will be fine once the boomers are gone. It's very clear they are teenagers. You were supposed to imagine a group of baby boomers in the image instead.

Their faces are covered, they could be any age.

Avoiding the question? I know it's the politics thread, but you don't have to become a politician.

That's not really getting to the crux of the problem though is it? Unless you think that the world's problems stop and end at Trump or Farage. What would be returning to after the saturation point? The time of good old sensible politics with call me Dave and Big Tony? The grown ups, like Nicola? You don't seem to be articulating a future, simply suggesting that the death of a generation will pave the way to something better. I expect that's unlikely.

Didn't he retire 8 years ago?

I guess I'm not really understanding what the picture of health looks like in a declining age. I'm not really seeing a vision from anyone politically that suggests that they really understand the issues at hand, not am I sure that the illusion of representative democracy has it within itself to deal with those issues when they present themselves. If there are no wise elderly folk, as you suggest, to pass their knowledge onto the younger generation, then who* will guide them through the next few decades when they'll likely experience things at a scale that no human society has before? Why would it not be easier to jump on board with the grifters and charlatans? What exactly is it that you picture the future looks like? *I'm nae fuckin deein it.

I don't quite understand this. Bounce back to where? Nearly every material resource used to power modernity is on to its decline curve. I don't think age will be a factor in the decline of civilisation. The next war will be fought by the younger generation, at the behest of the older. As has always been the case.

Really? Allegedly he ejaculated into a bin on the team bus and then tried to set it on fire to hide the evidence. Edit: a few seconds in and no solicitor calls. I think you might be on to something.

What a touching eulogy.

He's also not very good at managing football teams.